1

Expert Workshop:

Whitebait management and engagement

Meeting Record

31 July 2018 Willeston Conference Centre

Level 11, 15 Willeston St, Wellington

Monarch Conference Room

Mihi

Participants

**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** Johanna Pierre (Facilitating) **** (Recordkeeping)

Context and objectives

JP described the background to the workshop and its objectives, including:

• The Minister of Conservation’s priority on whitebait and her envisaged purpose for this work

(To ensure healthy and restored whitebait populations and provide for a sustainable

fishery)

• The Minister’s required output for this stage of the work, i.e. an issues and options paper

setting out all issues and options for whitebait management, and associated pros, cons and

risks.

• The purpose of today’s workshop, i.e. to bring together DOC SMEs with external experts who

are able to advise DOC on process and engagement from a Māori perspective (i.e. not

representative iwi at this point – but as experts able to view whitebait management with a

Māori lens).

• The workshop will identify critical issues relating to the Minister’s purpose and advise DOC

on how to progress the work required in a way that meets the needs of Treaty partners. Advice

will also be sought from the group on an engagement framework and high level questions to

be used in DOC’s engagement with iwi at place.

**** described how this style of engagement (i.e. preliminarily working with Māori SMEs before a roll-

out of representative engagement with iwi at place) is a new approach for DOC, which has a strong

desire to work more effectively with Treaty Partners. He highlighted that the backgrounds and

expertise of the invitees today were particularly appropriate as all were able to effectively work with

and link the multiple layers of legislation, policy and operations on the ground, that characterise the

environment around whitebait. Integrating those levels was something not everyone could do in the

2

community, and the group today provided a rich gathering of knowledge, experience, and diverse

perspectives that DOC could learn from.

Tika teka

The group broke up for a warm-up round of whitebait-themed tika teka.

Updates

Sustainable Wild Whitebait Fishery Project (SWWFP): West Coast, South Island (WCSI)

**** updated the group on the SWWFP. Initiators of this project sought $180,000 and received

$80,000. A governance board and working group guide the work, with the West Coast Whitebaiters’

Association, and meetings occur on a regular basis with the work progressing effectively overall.

**** noted that WCSI is very different than a lot of other places in the country. For example, the

waterways are much cleaner in general. Further, locals fish differently than visitors to the region, e.g.

locals focus fishing activities at certain times of the tidal cycle. In-season, however, visitors from

outside the region may fish all day on the rivers, thereby having much greater impacts on running fish.

Being able to address such differences with management tools would be useful in the regions.

Freshwater fish threat classification

**** updated the group on the most recent work done on freshwater fish threat classification. The

latest report is due out very soon. In terms of whitebait, there were no status changes in this review.

Therefore, the threat classifications assigned in the 2013 review hold. It is important to note that these

classifications also have qualifiers, which provide useful information that is important to fully

understand the assigned classification.

**** enquired how the classifications guide DOC’s work, e.g. are they used in priority setting for work

programmes? DOC staff clarified that the classification system stands alone and is a transparent tool

for assigning threat status. Threat status is then one input (with others) into prioritising DOC’s work

programme overall. Recovery groups are one tool that DOC has used to address species threat status

(e.g. the large galaxiid recovery group). The threatened species strategy is a broad approach to species

triage, and DOC also considers how to maximise ‘bang for buck’ when setting its priorities for work

(e.g., how species priorities mesh across ecosystems, regions, etc.) The challenge of prioritisation can

be broadly framed by the question “if you can only save 200 species, which would you save and why?”

**** enquired how cultural information was incorporated into threat classifications. DOC staff

clarified that it isn’t – the classification tool is purely based on species information (e.g. rates of

decline).

**** noted that threat classification effectively focused attention on triage and reacting to the worst

case. In contrast, a more positive and holistic framing that iwi may better identify with would be “what

do we want our awa to look like?”, with work focused on achieving that desired state.

**** queried how data are collected on populations. DOC staff noted that this is difficult (and has been

difficult historically). **** clarified that adult fish are important in enabling estimation of decline

rates. However, robust national monitoring is not in place, which makes it very difficult to understand

what is happening at a population level. It is unclear how whitebait are impacted by commercial and

recreational fishing, and where fishing pressures are having the greatest impact on populations.

**** noted that the distinction between recreational and commercial fishing is a very important one,

with far-reaching implications.

Freshwater Fisheries Technical Bill

**** updated the group on this work, advising that it is in progress in accordance with required

legislative process. The Bill focuses on technical fixes to existing legislation, to help ensure it is fit for

3

purpose and provides the Minister with an effective toolbox for management. (For example, it is a

violation to damage a spawning site, yet there is nothing in writing to explain what actions can be

taken when damage is done or what defines damage). It may mean that there are more tools available

than are ever used, but that situation was preferable to not being able to effectively manage due to a

lack of tools. Issues identified with existing legislation include inconsistent links between primary (the

Conservation Act) and secondary (the Regulations) legislation.

While the progress of any Bill is vulnerable to the demands on the legislative calendar, no significant

impediments were foreseen at this stage.

Fish passage guidelines

**** advised that the guidelines for fish passage were now available in published hard copy, as well as

online. The guidelines explain how to design fish-friendly barriers, and remediate and restore barriers

that are problematic for fish passage. There is also an app available for assessing fish passage barriers.

It is hoped that these guidelines become a nationally-applied tool. **** noted that the guidelines are

already being used, e.g. by NZTA and Kiwirail.

Involvement of Ministry for the Environment

**** asked how MfE was involved in the bigger picture of freshwater and whitebait.

**** noted that MfE had rolled out the Freshwater Improvement Fund. MfE, DOC and the Ministry

for Primary Industries are working on greater coordination to identify priorities for action. **** hoped

MfE would produce further work on sediment in waterways and wetlands in the next year or two.

Other matters

**** noted that elvers run with whitebait, and considering them together would be useful.

**** noted that mahinga kai sites and health have been recognised at the regional level.

**** advised the group on Ngai Tahu’s position on water. Ngai Tahu have taken the position that they

never sold water to the Crown, and on that basis, they challenge (and will challenge in court) the

regional council as to who gave Councils the right to manage waterways within Ngai Tahu’s rohe. The

need to discuss rights of ownership/water rights with iwi is important and highly relevant to this

work.

Critical issues

JP introduced the next session, focused on identifying critical issues in three areas: management

tools, healthy and restored whitebait populations, and engagement. Three subgroups were created and

rotated through an exercise addressing the questions below (or others, as their discussion evolved).

Critical issues were issues that could determine the success or failure of the work under discussion.

Management tools:

• How would DOC’s Treaty partners ideally like to manage whitebait, and the whitebait fishery?

(at a country-wide, regional, iwi or other scale).

• Are the any current barriers to achieving these outcomes? What are they?

• What management tools (new or amended existing tools) would address relevant barriers and

enable management as desired?

Healthy and restored whitebait populations:

• What barriers exist to realising the vision of healthy and restored whitebait populations? i.e.

what stops this being achieved?

• Where/in what contexts do these barriers apply?

• What is required (i.e. recommended actions) to move these issues forward? (e.g. removing

pressures only, or more active interventions?)

4

Engagement:

• All engagement (iwi and stakeholders)

• Who?

• On what?

• Where?

• How (what format)?

• Rationale

Deliberations of these subgroups are presented as recorded by the groups, in appendices 3–5.

After the break-out discussion, **** reflected that there is likely to be existing mistrust between iwi

and Crown agencies due to history, and that iwi feel in advance that they should not only challenge the

framework being presented but will challenge the Crown’s right to progress it. **** considered that a

good way to address this would be to have DOC say “we acknowledge iwi interest in water and that

they are the best caretakers of water. We want to create a framework that enables iwi to use the rights

that you have.” For example, **** considers her iwi is quite different in that they have a fishery. They

want DOC to be part of it but the Act is not well written to achieve or enable this. In **** view, this

really is the most critical issue of all.

**** clarified that DOC as an agency has no legislated role in water management per se. DOC’s

mandate in this context relates to fish in the freshwater context (though still not all freshwater fish).

DOC is therefore constrained (and the Minister of Conservation [MOC] is similarly constrained) by

the bigger issue of water. However, MOC can make statements about how she sees these issues and

their progression.

**** noted that being clear as part of an engagement strategy on what DOC’s views and position (and

the MOC’s similarly) are on water is critical.

**** noted the constraints on DOC’s role but also that it could engage with other agencies, iwi and

individuals to attempt to address these issues. He reflected that it was essential for the MOC to

understand the issues and how DOC could work with the associated challenges and opportunities over

time.

**** identified that even among iwi, the playing field was not level in relation to engagement capacity

and water. For example, under the National Government, Fonterra became a critical lobby group that

has gained corporate influence, and influence among Crown agencies. Some iwi had received

settlement monies, whereas others hadn’t, which created disadvantages in terms of resourcing for

engagement. Even where settlement monies had been received, it was not appropriate for one iwi to

put their money into fixing another’s awa. **** considered that DOC, iwi, hapū, and commercial

partnerships should all have equal status but that iwi do not, and their participation is often

precluded.

**** added that while rights were one component of the broader issue, another is that no one

considers the ongoing economic disadvantages to Māori resulting from the damage to landscapes and

environments over time.

**** agreed there is an inherent mistrust between iwi and DOC, and that some iwi will see this

meeting today as inappropriate and an affront as they are not included. They may ask why they were

not invited.

**** suggested prefacing discussions by saying that DOC brought in a group that would be able to give

advice on the best strategy for approaching iwi appropriately, with the goal being better engagement

over time, may help reduce irritation amongst those excluded and the chance of starting off at-place

engagement on the wrong foot.

**** reflected on the 2-day hui last week between DOC and Treaty Partners noting that things will be

changing soon if there was any follow-through from the hui. He shared his views and experience that:

• There are major changes to come within the Department and there have already been a lot

within the last 20 years.

5

• People that come onto new committees ask why DOC is doing particular things but do not see

how much has changed.

• In 2012 he was part of a memorandum of understanding meeting with DOC. They had to

come to Wellington to get approval just to identify iwi as Treaty Partners. **** was at the hui

last week and **** told her what they wanted reviewed in the agreement. This landed at te

tiriti being included. He has great faith in people on the ground within DOC.

• To deliver things on the ground it is necessary to work with the rangers.

• Action for whitebait is needed on the ground ASAP. While not trying to diminish the issues,

he doesn’t want to get hung up on fixing inequities and lack of recognition over and above

undertaking action on the ground.

**** suggested that recognizing those inequities could help the process. That is not to say that a new

Māori unit is required, but it could be that Māori on the local level are supported and enabled to be

active on the ground. It is the framework at the top that is limiting this. **** would like a statutory

framework for DOC that would allow Māori would be empowered and implicitly give DOC an

additional tool to regulate with. Māori do not want to be more regulated, they need to be enabled and

empowered.

**** proposed contracting local iwi if DOC wants an assessment of the 422 culverts in a region. In his

view, it is time to put iwi out there on a contract basis and get iwi involved in many things. DOC and

MPI have funding for many different water issues. Hapū and iwi can do a lot of the monitoring

because DOC have already had control of that. Whanganui River is a living entity and all agree with

that.

JP noted that it did not have to be an either/or situation and that on-the-ground work could still

progress while higher level governance and rights issues are resolved.

**** acknowledged the role and passion of DOC ground staff. He reflected that the issue is at the top.

For example, the top is ignoring best advice from recovery groups. Caring for our national species is

not coming first and **** has spoken up at national hui about this. After speaking up at a recent hui,

every kiwi practitioner thanked him for speaking up. Two thirds of the waterways in Canterbury have

been over-allocated. Ngai Tahu want ownership of their rights, and a co-governance body over all

waterways, with all taxes from those waterways going towards funding the governance board.

Process design

JP reiterated DOC’s desire for co-design of the process going forward. The two fixed elements are

today’s workshop and the issues and options paper that the MOC has requested as the deliverable

from this work.

In the introductory document for the workshop (Appendix 2), a preliminary draft proposal of how the

process between these two fixed elements might look.

The group discussed how to approach engagement with Treaty Partners. DOC’s view is that at place

engagement is preferable to, for example, a single national hui. The group agreed strongly that at

place engagement was the best approach. However, what was appropriate for that engagement would

vary considerably amongst iwi (e.g. in terms of the number of locations and meetings). It was likely

that a process would involve some constraints due to funding and time. Those constraints would

require consideration as the approach develops based on iwi responses to DOC’s request to engage.

Ensuring there was enough time to engage effectively was vital. A token attempt was not seen as

adequate and would be more likely to impede (than facilitate) success of the work overall. If the

timeframe for the output of the work is December, that is overly ambitious. February 2019 is

ambitious but feasible with credible at-place engagement efforts.

The group acknowledged the strong presence of DOC staff in the regions, and that these staff are the

focal point of relationships between DOC and Treaty Partners (and the wider community). Involving

local staff was essential for success of engagement. However, local staff would need to be supported by

subject matter experts from DOC on this particular issue. In that case, should mistrust in the broader

agency manifest as noted above, local staff relationships would not be affected. Further, while

6

engagement with Treaty Partners was DOC’s priority by necessity, engaging with stakeholders in the

regions should occur as soon as possible subsequently, to ensure that the whole community was aware

of what DOC was doing. Creating divisions was seen as problematic, unproductive and unhelpful by

those in the regions.

**** noted the commitment to engagement and that 50:50 partnership for equal participation was

appropriate. **** reflected that her iwi’s engagement is affected by scale. DOC has not provided

resources to support their engagement. **** considered that other agencies had better track records of

providing financial support for engagement (e.g. paying for attendance, including fees for time for

those who engage). **** considered that DOC did engage less than other agencies.

**** commented that this feedback was useful in terms of his work on DOC’s overarching iwi

engagement programme. The approach of today’s session was new for DOC as the Department tries

new ways of working with iwi. Obviously there are many possible engagement styles, and if the

approach today isn’t working, it is important to hear that.

The group discussed the working group concept as set out in DOC’s preliminary proposed process,

who should be involved, and how to incorporate mātauranga Māori into the working group and at

place (noting that it is an inherent component of both). Some SMEs expressed reservations about a

purely technical focus for the working group, and recommended a group was convened that covered

interests relevant to whitebait – not a representative stakeholder group (in which participants would

naturally tend to focus on espousing their own position), but a group reflecting the diversity of

interests where participants brought knowledge and expertise relating to their interests, and were able

to work with others to ensure all were reflected fairly. **** pointed out that the West Coast group is

similar to this model, where the diversity of interests are reflected in the group’s make-up and that led

to a diverse discussion e.g. including science, technical, social and economic elements. **** noted that

having a shared vision held among such a group was essential for success.

The group noted that unbiased discussion and writing was critical for the report advising MOC, and

that an objective writer would be required to work with the group convened, to collate and present

their knowledge and views effectively. The alternative of the working group itself creating the report

was recognised as being too time intensive and vulnerable to the influence of dominant individuals.

**** noted that the working group could be a start point, with other sources of expertise accessed on

an ad hoc basis as needed through the process. That would be a way to ensure expertise required was

accessible and captured, while also keeping the group to a manageable size and focus. The group

agreed with this approach and noted that external advice could be sought from individuals or groups,

depending on what was needed.

**** noted the importance of social science and that whitebait management is not simply an ecological

issue. Understanding local behaviour is critical for successful management outcomes.

**** reflected that a fisheries science/management background would also be useful.

**** identified regional councils as important to involve. **** noted that knowledge within MfE would

overlap with councils to some degree, and that the central agency should be aware of how things could

and should work (noting that how they actually do work is variable region to region). The group

recognised that issues in this context were often local or regional, and that there were merits in both

levels of participation (i.e. Ministry and council level). **** reflected that RMA practitioners would

bring useful expertise given their practical experience in how the RMA works.

**** noted that fundamental to whitebait (and therefore essential for the working group to consider

and understand) were water quality, habitat and regulatory approaches.

**** noted that the Minister of Conservation was interested in advice on which options would provide

the biggest “bang for buck” in addressing her purpose for this work.

Having started with discussion on the draft process proposed by DOC (summarised in Appendix 2),

the group ended in agreement on the process below (Figure 1). The importance of continuity through

the process was recognised, in terms of the same individuals being involved (and if that was not

7

possible, a good handover between individuals was absolutely critical for success – to save having to

cover the same ground more than once and lose time bringing new people up to speed).

Engagement with iwi at place

Two subgroups were formed for a discussion of approaches to iwi engagement at place.

Their work was focused in three areas:

• Recommended principles for framing engagement: e.g. transparency, partnership, etc.

• Questions to frame iwi engagement at place, i.e. what do we need to ask and how do we need

to ask it.

• How can DOC conclude that engagement has been successful?

Groups were also asked to identify amendments to critical issues identified earlier in the day if

appropriate, given these more focused discussions on iwi engagement.

Subgroup discussions are compiled in Appendix 6.

Closing advice for DOC

Ensure that this group is notified before any announcements are made by the Minister.

Feedback on the day

**** and JP closed the day, thanking group members for their extensive, thoughtful and valuable

contributions and emphasising that feedback was welcome anytime (either anonymously or in

person).

Group members reflected that the diversity within the group had contributed value, recognised the

intent of the new approach (as well as earlier reservations expressed regarding this particular

engagement being non-representative), and that there is an appetite to get engagement right and that

is genuine.

Next steps

JP will circulate the draft meeting record for participants to provide feedback on. JP will also

circulate, for input, a list of the range of interests that could be reflected in the working group.

Overall, DOC will continue to develop the work programme and be in touch with group members as

appropriate in due course.

8

Figure 1. Process agreed by the workshop

Today’s workshop

At place engagement (local

DOC staff with SMEs/National

Office) with whanau, hapu, iwi*

Definition of at place engagement:

local DOC staff make contact with

Treaty partners (TPs) who define how/where they want to engage

Definition of local engagement with community-based

stakeholders

Engagement with community-based stakeholders ASAP

after TP engagement

Working group ((WG), covering

diversity of interests in whitebait)

Group contributesto and reviews report with penheld by drafter.

(WG can also seek input from external experts in a one-on-

one or group format).

Draft report provided to

TPs and local

stakeholders for input

Report revised using feedback

(with WG), points of difference documented, final report circulated

amongst WG.

Final report circulated

amongst TPs

and local stakeholders

Minister of Conservation receives final report and a record of feedback from TP engagement.

* Depending on timing, at-place engagement may still be underway when the WG first meets. If this is the case, additional feedback from at-place engagement will be available to the second WG meeting.

More than one meeting

9

Appendix 1: Workshop agenda

Expert Workshop: Whitebait management and engagement

31 July 2018

Willeston Conference Centre

Level 11, 15 Willeston Street, Wellington

__________________________________________________________________________________

Agenda

__________________________________________________________________________________

10:00 am Mihi

Introduction to workshop

Context

Objectives for this workshop

Updates on other relevant issues

11:00 BREAK (Morning tea provided)

11:15 Critical issues

• Management tools

• Healthy and restored whitebait populations

• Engagement

Process design

13:15 BREAK (Lunch provided)

13:45 Engagement with iwi at place

Closing advice for DOC

Feedback on the day

15:30 END

__________________________________________________________________________________

10

__________________________________________________________________________________

Background reading

__________________________________________________________________________________

The following references are provided as optional background reading to inform workshop discussions.

• Goodman, J. 2018. Conservation, ecology and management of migratory galaxiids and the whitebait

fishery: A summary of current knowledge and information gaps. Department of Conservation,

Wellington.

This report summarises the current state of knowledge, drawing on published and unpublished

information, and personal communications where alternative sources are unavailable. It also identifies

knowledge gaps. The report was produced by the Department of Conservation.

• Baker, C., Egan, E., and Gee, E. 2018. Potential options for regulation changes to the NZ whitebait

fishery. Prepared for the New Zealand Conservation Authority. NIWA, Wellington.

This report was prepared by NIWA, on contract to the New Zealand Conservation Authority (NZCA).

The report considers regulatory options for whitebait management. It does not consider Mātauranga

Māori, social, cultural, legal or economic perspectives. The NZCA is a national statutory body that

provides policy advice to the Minister of Conservation and the Director-General of Conservation. DOC

was not involved in the production of this report, and it is not intended to reflect any DOC view on

future whitebait management.

• Williams, E., Crow, S., Murchie, A., Tipa, G., Egan, E., Kitson, J., Clearwater, S. and Fenwick, M.

2017. Whitebait. Pages 79 – 104 in: Understanding taonga freshwater fish populations in Aotearoa-

New Zealand. Prepared for Te Wai Māori Trust. NIWA, Wellington.

This report was prepared by NIWA for Te Wai Māori Trust, to inform the development of the Trust’s

strategic plan. The report was completed following a desktop review of whitebait that covered life cycle,

distribution, threat status, population pressures, and fishery management.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Point of contact for questions on this workshop

__________________________________________________________________________________

• Johanna Pierre ****

11

Appendix 2: Workshop briefing document

Whitebait working group background

Context:

The Minister of Conservation has identified progressing a review of whitebait management as one of her priorities. The purpose of this work is ‘To ensure healthy and restored whitebait populations and provide for a sustainable fishery’. To achieve this, a whitebait working group of 12-15 experts will be formed. This group will include experts in ecology, species management, fisheries management, habitat restoration, mātauranga Māori, fishing, economic value, etc. To start informing this work, a stocktake of technical (western science) and knowledge gaps has been prepared. The working group will be tasked with examining the science and coming up with an ‘Issues and Options’ paper setting out the pros and cons, risks and effectiveness of a range of options for work that could be done to address the pressures facing whitebait populations. The options may be at a local, regional or national level and may include, for example, such things as:

• Actions that could be undertaken at a specific location (e.g. restoring spawning sites)

• Identifying and operationalising best practice for common interventions occurring in whitebait habitats (e.g. drain clearing and culvert design)

• Education and advice (e.g. guidance to community groups on how to improve the health of populations), and,

• Actions relating to whitebait fishing legislation (e.g. gear used, season length, closed areas, provision of information, data gathering).

The whitebait working group will seek input from the wider community on their draft issues and options paper through a broader forum or forums before finalising their advice. Specific proposals that the Minister wishes to progress will then be turned into a discussion document for formal public consultation. The Department wishes to ensure that there is a strong element of co-designing this work with Treaty Partners. We are going to do this by:

1. Ensuring that there is a strong weighting of Maori on the whitebait working group, to bring Mātauranga Māori and Māori perspectives on the whitebait fishery to the discussion. The Māori participants will be subjective matter experts (SMEs) not representatives of any particular iwi or geographic region.

2. Having a workshop between Māori SMEs and DOC SMEs before meeting with the wider working group. This workshop will explore process design, identify critical issues and provide guidance on high level questions to be used by DOC’s Operations staff in their engagement with iwi.

3. Engaging through Operations at place to get feedback on these high-level questions. 4. Ensuring that information is incorporated into the work of the wider working group. 5. Having further discussions with iwi on the draft issues and options paper at place through

Operations, or through regional or national forums. 6. Providing the final issues and options paper to iwi.

12

Proposed timetable (flexible and open to change):

• A one-day workshop between Māori SMEs and DOC SMEs, and facilitated by an independent consultant, to establish overarching principles, questions for engagement with Treaty Partners at place, and design process for the work. This workshop is proposed for 31 July 2018.

• Engagement with Treaty Partners at place from early August, with the requirement to get feedback to working group by their second meeting.

• 2-day meeting of the whitebait working group at the end of August to early September, to start this work.

• 2-day meeting of the working group mid to end of October, to finalise a draft issues and options paper.

• Forums (format to be determined) in early November, to seek wider input on the draft issues and options paper.

• 1-day meeting of the whitebait working group in mid-November to incorporate findings from the forums into the final paper.

• Delivery of final issues and options paper to DOC by the beginning of December (in order to then advise the Minister of before end of the year).

• There will also be time required to review drafts between meetings.

13

Appendix 3: Critical issues: management tools

14

How would Treaty partners like to manage whitebait (and the fishery)

Are there current barriers to achieving these outcomes

What tools would address barriers and enable management as desired

Need to understand “health” (“Integrated health”) Shifting baselines – place names and knowledge Permits for moving fish More understanding of mahinga kai concepts indicate past condition/distribution Registration Co-governance in settlements Resourcing Rāhui tools Co-governance where iwi have a say and DOC manages or joint active mgmt or iwi controlled

Multiple agencies and a lack of clarity on who does what

Need for tools that can be applied at local level depending on local circumstances

or DOC acts (using legislation) at iwi request How to recover from current situation Unifying rules – national approach Mātauranga Māori and science combining for Public perception Jetty, stand controls (council vs landowner management and the design of mgmt. tools Who to talk to responsibility) Tino rangitiratanga Councils: see conflicts at many levels, not resourced Habitat restoration Recognition of water rights to do compliance (and shouldn’t be funded by rate- Multiple boats, multiple locations Habitat restoration incl. spawning sites payers, national disparity in council resourcing). Catch diaries? (not realistic??) Manage/avoid/minimise intensification (i.e. no further development along waterways)

Overall, DOC, MPI, NIWA and regional councils are all working on and funded to do conservation.

Compliance (could be joint DOC and iwi presence to enforce. MPI role in regions?)

Iwi want to be resourced to participate in RMA This causes inefficiencies and wastes money, Reserves monitoring (stock exclusion fencing, assessment of Human resources, equipment, community group Closed areas farmers, water quality, reporting polluters and efforts, etc. Strong communication plan, approach Detrimental effects. Then councils act (ideally via RMA)).

Quota (e.g. QMS approach – an option but in reality not feasible)

Gear restrictions or changes Stand registration Legislation

Red and orange colours reflect the workshop’s assessment of priority (high–medium). No low priority elements were identified. Text in black remains where subgroups did

not assign priorities.

15

Appendix 4: Critical issues: healthy and restored whitebait populations

16

What barriers exist to achieving healthy and restored whitebait populations

Where/in what contexts do barriers apply Actions needed to move issues forward

Need to understand “health” (“Integrated health”) Nationwide or site specific? Fish passage fixes More understanding of mahinga kai concepts Legislation Helping people understand fish How much knowledge is enough? Science, Funding, resources Stopping further damage Mātauranga Māori, local knowledge, Pakeha Lead? Who is responsible? Fencing and planting edges, riparian areas knowledge, compliance Artificial spawning sites Remove trout Shifting stopbanks (also benefits tuna) What needs to be restored? Mindsets, cultures, Restoring urban streams, water quality conflicts of interest Add habitat elements in-stream Not just ecological issues: need social connections Artificial fish refuges with habitats, rivers Put the river back, not a single-species focus Multiple and conflicting policy, regulations, monitoring Address what fish need (water, protected spawning

grounds, access to floodplain to feed at flood, Conflicts with land uses (farming lowlands, forestry, natural banks, shade, refuges from trout, commercial uses in urban areas, political & social issues) food) Burden of proof – cause and effect Guidance documents, best practice identified Lacking RMA monitoring Pilot projects so people get skills Recognition of Te Ao Māori – everything connected Consultants and DOC tech support Need to understand population dynamics, early life Education material and events (e.g. Nicola Toki) history Regulation and enforcement Need to understand efficacy of management tools put Fewer silos in place Catchment management – mountains to sea Whitebait farming (needs further work, science) Education in schools (flows to older generations) Monitoring Larval fish at sea and estuarine research Study impact of management tools put in place

Red, orange and blue colours reflect the workshop’s assessment of priority (high – low). Text in black remains where subgroups did not assign priorities.

17

Appendix 5: Critical issues: engagement

18

Who What Where How Rationale

Local (at place) Recommendations from working Ask iwi and locally-based Socialise issues first To ensure everyone is are People affected by the change group stakeholders where Consider the size of the job heard, has listened, is Iwi, hapu (catchment based) Iwi and stakeholders’ ideas on how Target locations with most Site specific informed and outcomes Community, NZ public to address Minister’s vision fishing Establish timeframes acted on. West Coast Whitebait Group Scope for broader conversation Media releases Need to ensure Whitebaiters (with local DOC staff, and/or External feedback portal democratic process. Cascade Whitebait Company national staff in regions)? Use targeted audience groups Regional and local councils Regulatory tools where appropriate so people Govt agencies (MfE, MPI) Consider best practice site-specific feel free to speak NIWA, Cawthron case studies As early as possible with iwi Universities For iwi, focus on enabling Landowners Being mindful of unbalanced Fish and Game resources Restoration groups Need for integration but fix Recreational fishers inanga first Fonterra Tap into existing broader Federated Farmers processes Business Co-design, consultation Conservation Boards Different approach for Conservation Authority different iwi as resource Forest and Bird allows Environmental Protection Authority National to support local DOC Iwi Chairs Forum staff Resources to allow iwi to engage Social media

Red, orange and blue colours reflect the workshop’s assessment of priority (high – low). Purple = priority assigned as both high and low (by different workshop subgroups),

pink = assigned both high and medium priority. Text in black remains where subgroups did not assign priorities.

19

Appendix 6: Engagement with iwi at place

20

• Recommended principles for framing engagement: e.g. transparency, partnership, etc.

- Genuine – i.e. don’t rush, do listen and don’t ask if you don’t hear it.

- Diverse staff to conduct engagement – include local and National Office

- Transparency

- Equal platform to engage for all parties and supported by appropriate resourcing

- Trust – be clear and honest

- Integrity

- Open communication

- Provide space for iwi discussion - iwi may choose people to own/alternate process

- Make engagement efficient (e.g. by recognizing what is already known)

- Engagement at place - iwi are inviting Crown to discussion

o Broader discussion will take a lot of time and need more info and context, but some iwi

might want a broader process

o Scope set in advance by asking iwi what they want to discuss, e.g. whitebait, water

quality, habitat

o Issues - timeframe, resourcing, not necessarily one approach wanted by all

- Continuity → cohesion in ongoing engagement (follow up, follow through with the same people)

- Effective wrap-up at end of hui → what we’ve agreed, who, when → make end-points and next

steps crystal clear

- Acknowledgement of local expertise

- Recognise what is already known

• Questions to frame iwi engagement at place, i.e. what do we need to ask and how do we need to

ask it.

- What would you like to see if there is a change in management and regulation?

- How does DOC relinquish power and control and accept that concept?

- Describe a healthy fishery

- What are the issues that iwi see in the fishery

- What are the points of agreement on methods and approach

- What local projects are underway (could any serve as pilots for NZ)?

• How can DOC conclude that engagement has been successful?

- Tikanga and engagement underpins all

- DOC never consistent - agreements to preserve consistency.

- More action time to make it happen!

- Whanau → hapu → regional WG “reps”

- Outcomes of engagement captured in outputs, advice to Minister

- Satisfaction among iwi that they have had the opportunity to be heard, and have been heard.